I am currently reading Robert Bork’s Slouching Toward Gommorah. Since I pretty much already agree with most of it, I’d like to get a more rounded viewpoint. Please recommend books that you think would act as good rebuttals. Thanks!
Examples of topics that need discussion from a “liberal” (whatever that may mean) viewpoint:
The rise of Modern Liberalism over traditional Liberalism.
The shift of applying the “free speech ammendment” from protecting the free exchange of ideas to freedom from limitations on modes of expression, regardless of whether those modes actually present ideas or whether those ideas could easily be conveyed in other less offensive modes.
The consequences of radical individualism, e.g., the enshrinement of individual gratification has led to a plague of divorce and unwed mothers, and the subsequent consequences of this on their children.
Judicial activism and its usurpation of democracy in America.
What I meant here is, for instance, offensive rap lyrics would not have been protected by courts of 50+ years ago under the 1st Ammendment even if they had been so defended.
I read this a long time ago, and didn’t like it, and I’m pretty damned conservative. To my mind this book is where Bork turned the corner from “thoughtful constitutional scholar” to “cranky old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn.”
As Bork has become more and more famous, his books have gotten worse. The Antitrust Paradox (1978) is easily one of the best books ever written on the topic. The Tempting of America is a nice explanation of originalist theory coupled with a nifty telling of his failed confirmation hearings. Slouching is…well, not very good.
I’ve never read Bork’s book, so perhaps you could explain what he means by “the rise of modern liberalism over traditional liberalism.” Is the phrase “traditional liberalism” here used to mean 19th-Century classical liberalism, i.e., what we now would call libertarianism? Or does it mean something else?
Well, shoot! Saw the thread had ol’ Dewey’s name attached, and thought "Hot damn! It’s party time, Dewey is ridin’ to the defense of the Dreaded Bork! Yeee-haw, have us some fun tonight!
And here I see you take a perfectly sensible, if mild, rebuke of same. Damn, Dewey, for a Texas boy, you just aren’t much fun, sometimes.
So what is it, then, that Bork calls “modern liberalism”? Does he mean the New Deal? Affirmative action? Pacifism? Labor unionism? Or (as the book’s title implies) is he talking purely about things in the personal and social spheres, rather than the economic sphere or the foreign-policy sphere?
Although I’m quite sympathetic to much of the originalist philosophy, I was pretty unimpressed with The Tempting of America. Found his manner of arguing his points really unpersuasive.
Bork has really spun off into bitter crankiness. Of course, so has Scalia, who used to be a forceful arguer of his philosophy, but now seems to get most of his press ranting and raving against the liberals. At least Bork has a bit of a reason for being cranky – some of the stuff said about him during the confirmation fight were pretty low down.
Interesting news out this week that the Court in '92 was ready to strike down Roe, but a very fortuitous switch in time by Anthony Kennedy (who Reagan nominated after Bork got Borked and Ginsburg got bonged) resulted in reaffirmance. Say what you will about Teddy Kennedy, but he pretty much saved Roe by nailing Bork.
I’m amazed that Dewey Cheatem Undhow and I agree on something.
Bork’s shown himself to be a prominent judicial thinker in the past, but I didn’t much like his attitude. I’m personally a “better King Log than King Stork” sort of guy, but Bork struck me as the sort of fellow who seemed to think that King Stork was a proactive sort of monarch… which, I think, may have had to do with his getting shot down when he was up for that Supreme Court seat.
… but “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” didn’t impress me in the least. Mixed elements of his earlier reasoned arguments with big chunks of “things are not like they were when I was young, and THAT’S what’s wrong with America!”
Thanks. I’ll be checking it out soon.
To the rest: I’m not surprised that there are those who don’t like the book or Bork’s view. But I want to know where he is wrong – where his facts are incorrect or logic fallacious.
I realize now that my question is much to broad. I’ll post more specific questions after I finish the book. Meanwhile, I’ll still be interested in responses here.
I still think that Bork’s presence on the court would have been a good thing. As you can see the his book The Tempting of America, he is a strict constructionist, which is always a good thing for the court.
But I agree completely with Dewey Cheatem Undhow’s post. With Slouching Toward Gommorah, he’s gone further into crankiness, and has taken a decidedly anti-libertarian view (which rubs me the wrong way). But most of those positions that he advocates are the job of legislatures to address, which is the proper place, not the courts. It’s been a while since I read the book, but I think most of what he’s talking about is legislative policy, not court matters.
The basic premise of the book, IIRC, is that there is tension between individual liberty and the needs of the rest of society to restrict one’s liberty. I think it’s called the Madisonian Dillema or something. He seems to feel that the pendulum has swung too far to the individual side.
In order to warrant a rebuttal, I think a thesis has to have some sort of minimally cogent arguments. As I can recall from a quick look at that book in a bookstore once, it more or less just seemed like a rant (and it seems even some resident conservatives here on the SDMB agree with me).
I remember in particular looking at the chapter where he complains about how America went to hell in the 60s and I thought, “Surely here he must mention something on the other side in regards to civil rights for example.” When I found that he didn’t (and couldn’t find it in the index either), I pretty much decided that this piece of garbage isn’t worth my time.
Before I looked at that book, I thought that Bork was a thoughtful scholar whose views I generally found to be repugnant…basically the complete antithesis of my own. After looking at it, I decided that my original assessment seemed to be only half right.
I picked the book up, thinking he was going to be talking about social issues, and what the courts could do about those issues. I was half right.
Much of the early part of the book seemed to deal largely with Bork’s ideas about how other people don’t seem to have much moral fiber or good character, and how inflicting certain things on these people can instill moral fiber and good character.
As a former teenager, I tend to get suspicious whenever anyone thinks that something would be good for my moral fiber and character. Particularly if they themselves don’t think THEY need any of whatever I’m about to have shoved down my throat.
Bork sounded very much like my grandfather, in that he seems to feel that extremely hard work and poverty is good for you. Without qualifiers of some sort, I would be inclined to say, “Bullshit. Goals are good for you. Working hard towards your goals, to escape poverty, THAT instills moral fiber and good character. Simply working your ass off in poverty, no goals and no hope, aside from survival… that doesn’t instill much of anything except for the feeling that the system doesn’t work, everyone is out to screw you, and it is therefore okay to screw other people in order to get ahead.”
Admittedly, I returned the book to the library only a third of the way through it. I figured if he couldn’t stop ranting and start making sense by that point, he wasn’t going to.